With the news yesterday that South Korean scientists have made an enormous breakthrough in the area of therapeutic cloning, this issue moves front and center once more. Why stem cell research for medical purposes is a politically controversial issue in the United States is a fascinating (and highly revealing) question, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans support it. In fact, according to recent polls on the issue, around 62%-75% of Americans -- depending on exactly how the question is asked -- are in favor of stem cell research to cure diseases like Alzheimers, Parkinson's, Juvenile Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. A small but disproportionately powerful minority of about 20%-30% opposes such research. And, unfortunately for the rest of us, these are the people with the ear of top Republican lawmakers, including President Bush.
Significantly, approval of stem cell research for therapeutic purposes cuts across party lines, with large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents supporting "using discarded embryos to conduct stem cell research to try to find cures for diseases." (Ipsos-Reid poll, 8/01).
So what's the problem here? First, a bit of background. According to the Human Genome Project (HGP), affiliated with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, there are three main types of cloning technologies: "(1) recombinant DNA technology or DNA cloning, (2) reproductive cloning, and (3) therapeutic cloning."
Generally speaking it is only the latter two types - reproductive and therapeutic - that are politically controversial. According to the HGP, reproductive cloning is used "to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. Think "Dolly the Sheep." Objections to reproductive cloning center on the alleged risks of creating children that would be at increased risk of abnormalities, malformations, and premature death. There are also fundamental ethical questions pertaining to "the commodification of human life" (i.e., so-called "designer babies") and "treat[ing] persons as means rather than as ends in themselves." The opposition to reproductive cloning is widespread enough that, earlier this year, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling on member states to prevent human cloning.
In contrast, therapeutic cloning, which extracts stem cells from a 5-day old human egg (called a "blastocyst") for use in biomedical research aimed at curing disease, is overwhelmingly popular, as the polls above indicate. However, there is vociferous opposition, mainly from a hard core of so-called "pro-life" people. These folks believe that destroying the blastocyst is wrong and worry that cloning for curing disease will inevitably lead to down a "slippery slope" towards human reproductive cloning. There is little doubt that the "slippery slope" concern is legitimate and needs to be dealt with through strong legislation. The first concern, though, makes no sense at all: preventing scientists from research which will cure diseases in children (Juvenile Diabetes) and adults (Alzheimers in people like Ronald Reagan, paralysis in people like Christopher Reeve,) because of concerns over a 5-day-old blastocyst containing a grand total of 60 cells.
Do these people truly care more about a conglomeration of undifferentiated cells than real, live human beings? It sure seems that way. How cruel, hard-hearted, and dead wrong can you be?
Unfortunately, some of our posturing, pandering politicians appear to be just as cruel, hard-hearted, and wrong. Alternatively, they are simply terrified by the small minority of "pro-life" extremists on this issue. The resultant cave-in in to the far right wing is, undoubtedly, why the Bush Administration has blocked public funding for most research on therapeutic cloning. As a result, people are suffering and dying every day because of diseases that could be cured with therapeutic cloning technology. That's pathetic.
Fortunately, there are a few Republicans out there willing to stand up to the right wing extremists on this issue, courageous people like Nancy Reagan. About a year ago, President Reagan's wife stood up in public and came out strongly in favor of allowing stem cell research: "I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this... We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more."
A year later, there is a bill being pushed by Republican moderates in the House to expand stem cell research and to reverse the Bush Administration's overly restrictive rules from 2001. Hard-line conservatives and the Bush Administration are fighting it tooth and nail. Still, the legislation has a chance of passing Congress this year, if it can just pick up enough support from reasonable Republicans.
What about the Virginia Congressional delegation? As of today, 4 Virginia Congressmen -- Bobby Scott (D -3rd), Jim Moran (D - 8th), Rick Boucher (D-9th), and Tom Davis (R-11th) -- out of the 11-member delegation support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (HR 810). Under this bill, stem cells would be derived from human blastocysts "donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, [and that] were created for the purposes of fertility treatment" and which would be otherwise discarded. In other words, either flush these cells down the drain or use them to cure Alzheimers, Diabetes, paralysis and cancer. Now that's a real tough choice, huh?
Well, apparently it is a very tough choice for the seven Congressmen from Virginia who oppose HR 810. People like Jerry Kilgore allies Eric Cantor (R - 7th), Virgil Goode (R - 5th), Thelma Drake (R -2nd) and Bob Goodlatte (R-6th). Meanwhile, there is a companion bill in the US Senate (S. 471) which currently has 29 cosponsors. These Senators include several Republicans (Susan Collins of Maine, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania), but neither of Virginia's two Senators - George Allen (another close Kilgore ally) and John Warner - appear interested in therapeutic cloning to save human life.
Interestingly, the Virginia legislature this year passed the "Christopher Reeve Stem Cell Research Fund," the purpose of which was "to support medical and biomedical stem cell research conducted in Virginia institutions of higher education relating to the causes and cures of disease." The Virginia bill specifically stipulated that "No moneys from the Fund may be provided to any entity that conducts human stem cell research from stem cells obtained from human embryos."
On February 22, 2005, the bill passed the Virginia House by a vote of 76-22. Care to guess who voted no? Here's a hint about one of the illustrious 22 Delegates who care more about blasocysts then living human beings: his last name begins with a "K" and his twin brother is running for governor this year as a Republican (yep, Terry Kilgore). Besides Kilgore, others opposing this utterly reasonable bill included luminaries like Dick "Pornography Expert/Baby Pesticides" Black and Charles "Constitutional Proselytization Amendment" Carrico. Fine company you keep, Mr. Kilgore. Just like your twin brother.
Here's the bottom line. If you care more about 5-day-old blastocysts than about saving the lives of children and adults, you should definitely vote for people like George Allen, Jerry Kilgore, Dick Black and Charles Carrico. If not, then you should vote for their opponents, whoever they may be. The life you save may be your own -- or your spouse's, parent's, child's, friend's...even your favorite politician's!
[UPDATE: Bush Vows to Veto Measure Easing Stem Cell Restriction"]